This document discusses designing collaborative e-government services between citizens and the public sector. It presents two case studies of such services in Finland called Fillarikanava and KommentoiTätä. It proposes modifications to the STOF business model framework to analyze value creation in these services, where traditional market logics may not apply. User participation and motivation, content and community aspects, and open data are emphasized over revenue. The cases are then revisited through the modified framework, identifying their strengths and weaknesses in collaborative value creation. Feedback is requested to improve the analytic model.

1. Designing E-government Services for Collaboration Between Citizens and the Public Sector T-109.4300 Network Services Business Models, lecture8.4.2010 Teemu Ropponen, teemu.ropponen@tkk.fi Department of Media Technology

2. Goal of the Lecture To give an introductory perspective on designing services and business models in e-government cases where traditional market logics of service production and consumption may not apply. Present a model for analyzing such value creation, based on modifications to the STOF model. To get questions, comments and improvement ideas to this model from YOU – for further research and development.

3. Contents Background on e-government Collaborative e-government services – research topics & goals Case: Fillarikanava Case: KommentoiTätä Possibilities and difficulties in collaborative e-government Modifying STOF for modeling collaborative e-government services Cases: Fillarikanava and KommentoiTätä revisited & analyzed Summary Suggestions for further study

4. The FinnishE-governmentConcept Source: FinnishMinistry of Justice, SADe-Report 2009

5. Motivations Finland has fallen in its e-government and i-society goals. As much as 85% of e-government initiatives fail (11 billion USD per year investment). Few tools exist for service innovation and analysis in e-government. “Crisis of democracy“ vs. prospects of Internet technology and behaviors, push towards open, collaborative government. Sources, e.g., Heeks 2001, Esteves et. al 2008, Finnish Ministry of Justice 2009, UN 2008

7. Define some guidelines regarding collaborative e-government services, on a general level

9. Social Media and the Public Sector? How can the public sector benefit from the rise of the social networking services (SNS) and social media? Sources: Ahlqvist et al. 2008

10. CollaborativeE-government Services The cases that are studied are new kind of emerging e-government services. These cases the principle of engaging citizens into the processes in an open and transparent way, enabled by the use of Web 2.0 technologies and driven by people contributing their knowledge and insight without monetary compensation, sometimes referred to as participatory economics. These kinds of applications could be called collaborative e-government services. Source: Ropponen 2010

11. Examplecases Fillarikanavahttp://fillarikanava.hel.fi ”The bike channel” is a service in which the City of Helsinki is piloting a new kind of open and direct dialogue between citizens (bikers) and the administrative workers. “Tell, discuss, and comment – and make Helsinki a better biking city” KommentoiTätä - http://flexi.tml.hut.fi/kt “An easy-to-use and effective web-based service (tool) for engaging document owners and their stakeholders in an open, social, constructive and deliberative commenting and discussion process” Key use case piloted are commenting on public documents (i.e, e-consultation), pilots with Ministry of Justice and others.

12. Fillarikanava

13. Fillarikanava

17. Ok, so what does this mean in terms of “business models”……the subject of the course, if you will. T-109.4300 Network Services Business Models, lecuture8.4.2010 Teemu Ropponen, teemu.ropponen@tkk.fi Department of Media Technology

19. Produsage

20. Crowdsourcing

21. Wisdom of the crowdsIntrinsic & extrinsic motivations for participation, think e.g., Wikipedia,social networks & media. Sources: E.g., Ahlqvist et. al 2008, Benkler 2006, Surowiecky 2004, Shirky 2008, Howe 2008, Bruns 2008

22. Roles of users => fromconsumers to fluidroles, switchingfromconsumer to producer (cmp. Social media) => users & usercommunityeffectivelypart of the provider (value) network However, usersdon’thavestatedstrategiesorgoals the sameway as organizations => motivationmechanisms ”Revenue” and ”valuecreation” in e-governmentservices – how to measureit! Potentialvaluecreationoutside of the serviceitself – e.g., throughreuse of data (openAPI’s) WhatMakesThisDifficult?

23. Business Model - Definition “…a blueprint for a service to be delivered, describing the service definition and the intended value for the target group, the sources of revenue, and providing an architecture for the service delivery, including a description of the resources, and the organizational and financial arrangements between the involved business actors…” Source: Bouwman et al. 2008

24. Business Model – Definition, cont’d ”EASY” “…a blueprint for a service to be delivered, describing the service definition and the intended value for the target group, the sources of revenue, and providing an architecture for the service delivery, including a description of the resources, and the organizational and financial arrangements between the involved business actors…” ”COMPLEX” Source: Bouwman et al. 2008

25. STOF Model – No ExplanationNeeded! Source: Faber & De Vos 2008

26. STOF: Assessment of ValueCreation Source: Faber & De Vos 2008 Q: howdoesthismodelneed to bechanged for collaborativee-governmentservices? Q: whatcanbefound out about the studiedcases?

27. Summary of Changes to STOF Domains Contentinteractions Content OpenAPI’s Userprofiles Digital identity Usercommunity Motivations Value (sources) Social capital Rewardmechanisms

28. CDI/CSF – UserValue Social interactions is a User value Incentives for participation Sense of community Sense of Community User Activation

29. CDI/CSF – NetworkValue Satisfactory Benefits Participation Encourage ment Participation Rewards Acceptable User Community External Value Creation Content Reusability

30. Service ContentInteraction Value source

31. Technology create Content ContentInteractions Digital identity Personal profile extends Open APIs

32. Motivation Organization User community Social capital

33. Finance Social capital generate Is a form of Value sources Value Value

34. Fillarikanava Revisited

36. Open data & reusability

37. Sense of community (e.g., profiles) low

38. Needs more presence and feedback from civil servants

39. Integration to real processes unclear

41. High-quality input & discussions

42. Public administration participating (vs. FixMyStreet)

43. Strategic buy-in from public administration (Helsinki strategy)

45. KommentoiTätä Revisited

47. Integration to processes?

48. Motivations for participation?

49. Competition – similar, technically better tools in the market

50. Revenue model unclear, although identifiable

52. Indications of improvement in process (efficiency) and quality of comments exist

55. (User-generated) Content (vs.Data)

56. Community (vs. User/Customer)

57. Open Data and APIs (vs. Integration)

58. Value network still applicable? (vs. ecosystems)